^you follow orders. If his command staff tells him to...he will.

I'd assume the man admitted that he was operating the vehicle. If he was intoxicated at the scene, an admission that he was the driver would likely be sufficient regardless of the statute.

 

Sometimes common sense falls to the side in statutes :lol:

^you follow orders. If his command staff tells him to...he will.

 

So the command staff (which was not present at the scene) will instruct the investigating officer to supplement his report and include the presence of alcohol even though the investigating officer determined that there was no alcohol present at the scene?

Sometimes common sense falls to the side in statutes :lol:

 

It would be the officer, not the statute, that lacked common sense in that situation.

This happened in West Virginia, are your plates for Kentucky?

 

And is the truck titled in your personal name or in a business name?

Ky and my personal vehicle

Just to clarify: you expect the police officer to supplement his initial report with a document that details the individual's intoxication? Keep in mind that the officer did not mention the presence of alcohol in his initial report.

 

Call me (Colonel)Crazy, but I find that hard to believe.

 

I expect the officer to accurately report the accident. He told Doc at the scene something to the effect it was obvious there was alcohol involvement and therefore it should be listed in the official report. So... if he failed to include it then yes I expect him to supplement the report.

 

And I want to be sure here, there is a big distinction between not being legally drunk and alcohol involvement. We know in the officer's opinion there wasn't enough for a DUI arrest but based on the conversation he had with Doc the reporting of alcohol involvement on the report seems like the proper thing to do meaning if he didn't do so then it may be improper and yes that could be a matter for his supervisors.

^this

I expect the officer to accurately report the accident. He told Doc at the scene something to the effect it was obvious there was alcohol involvement and therefore it should be listed in the official report. So... if he failed to include it then yes I expect him to supplement the report.

 

And I want to be sure here, there is a big distinction between not being legally drunk and alcohol involvement. We know in the officer's opinion there wasn't enough for a DUI arrest but based on the conversation he had with Doc the reporting of alcohol involvement on the report seems like the proper thing to do meaning if he didn't do so then it may be improper and yes that could be a matter for his supervisors.

 

I understand & agree with you...that is the right & proper thing to do. I just find it very difficult to believe that an officer would supplement his report to include the involvement of alcohol after he has already finalized a report saying that there was no alcohol.

 

Out of curiosity 'Ru, how common was it for you or your peers to supplement reports? How often did those supplements change your opinion on what happened at the scene?

It was rare but we did supplement reports on occasion. And its not so much about changing one's opinion but rather adding something that was omitted or adding additional facts that were uncovered after the report was completed.

 

I do remember a couple of times where subordinates did get something major wrong on the report and I spent a lot of time with them discussing/explaining why and then the report was supplemented and those would be the times where someone's opinion was changed.

It was rare but we did supplement reports on occasion. And its not so much about changing one's opinion but rather adding something that was omitted or adding additional facts that were uncovered after the report was completed.

 

I do remember a couple of times where subordinates did get something major wrong on the report and I spent a lot of time with them discussing/explaining why and then the report was supplemented and those would be the times where someone's opinion was changed.

 

Thanks for the honest answer.

 

Not to belabor the point, but (), it seems unlikely to me that an officer would freely supplement the report to include alcohol when he determined it wasn't necessary in the initial report. The involvement of alcohol would have been a HUGE omission in my opinion.

 

Therefore, I think an officer (and any human being) would be more likely to defend their decision that was made at the time of the investigation rather than admit that alcohol played a role & supplement the report.

Thanks for the honest answer.

 

Not to belabor the point, but (), it seems unlikely to me that an officer would freely supplement the report to include alcohol when he determined it wasn't necessary in the initial report. The involvement of alcohol would have been a HUGE omission in my opinion.

 

Therefore, I think an officer (and any human being) would be more likely to defend their decision that was made at the time of the investigation rather than admit that alcohol played a role & supplement the report.

 

You are welcome and I am glad to see you figured out on your own why this may be a supervisory issue at the police department. If the officer goes into defense mode then it is probably time to move up the chain of command. The bottom line is the the report should be as accurate as humanly possible.